Nice write up. My opinion Basic Assistance is slavery. Once you rely on the Gov. for your livelihood they control you.
The Basic Asset concept is interesting as long as it is not free. People should have to work or invest into it. That gives both the individual and the asset value. Local Gov. involvement on a small scale is fine, but anything larger I would be against.
There are a lot of assets that are in government control or could be erected that do not require buying in.
For example, if a city establishes a robotaxi network, you think people should buy in. Isnt that just maintaining the same slavery system we have?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Well it's not an easy question to answer. For example where will the funds come from for the robotaxi? The tax payers? What is the requirement to participate? Must you have lived in the city and have paid taxes for "x" amount of years? What if you moved there 6 months before launch? Don't get me wrong, I think it's an interesting idea, I just don't think it's a good idea to give people something for nothing. We've worked hard on HIVE for years blogging, engaging, etc. We have stake in the "asset" "community". Some of us bought our stake and that's fine too, but I wouldn't want someone coming in and getting something from HIVE without putting in any effort or funds for it.
No I understand what you are saying. There are many variables to consider. For example, some are in a city for decades, paying taxes. Their share should be higher, at least in principle, than someone who just moved in.
So we have a lot of things to work out. Over time, it becomes less of an issue as people get more involved and start the revenue stream flowing.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta